ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Adaptation
Climate change
Lock-in
Policy
Governance
Path dependency

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Earth System Governance
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/earth-system-governance
Unpacking adaptation lock-ins: Explaining the persistence of the adaptation gap
Nicolas W. Jager a,b,* , Meghan Alexander c, Lisanne Groen d,e, Dave Huitema b,
Bernd Siebenhüner f,g, Julie P. Kingf, John Turnpennyh, Tim Raynerh, Jean Hug´ed, Torsten Grothmann f
a Environmental Governance Group, Technische Universita¨t Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni, 10623, Berlin, Germany
b Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN, Wageningen, the Netherlands
c University of Nottingham, University Park Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
d Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419AT, Heerlen, the Netherlands
e Brussels School of Governance, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2 Boulevard de la Plaine, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
f Ecological Economics Group, Department for Business Administration, Economics and Law, Carl von Ossietzky Universit¨at Oldenburg, Ammerl¨ander Heerstr. 114-118, 26129, Oldenburg, Germany
g Department of Development Studies, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, 6031, South Africa
h University of East Anglia, Norwich research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
ARTICLE INFO
Climate change adaptation is increasingly outpaced by accelerating climate risks, resulting in a persistent and widening adaptation gap. Many current interventions remain incremental and insufficient, failing to address the scale of transformation required. We argue that this shortfall is best understood through the concept of adaptation lock-ins—systemic constraints that both cause and result from maladaptation. These lock-ins generate selfreinforcing dynamics that trap institutions and policy systems in established trajectories, hindering more ambitious and forward-looking action. In this paper, we explore how a deeper understanding of lock-ins can help explain enduring adaptation deficits and structural barriers to sustainable change. We also discuss methodological approaches to identifying lock-in mechanisms and show how such insights can be mobilized to inform deliberate ‘unlocking’ strategies that enable more equitable and transformative adaptation pathways and sustainability transformations.

* Corresponding author. Technische Universit¨at Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
E-mail address: jager@tu-berlin.de (N.W. Jager).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2026.100320
Received 19 September 2025; Received in revised form 10 February 2026; Accepted 17 February 2026
Available online 20 February 2026
2589-8116/© 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1.		Introduction
Climate change adaptation has so far been fragmented, incremental and sector-specific, typically focused on planning rather than implementation (IPCC, 2022), and with (very) limited evidence of transformative change (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021). As a result, adaptation actions are failing to keep pace with rapidly mounting climate risks (UNEP, 2024). Why? A decade of research has documented a wide range of barriers and constraints to adaptation and the societal processes underpinning them (Biesbroek et al., 2014; Eisenack et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2021). Yet despite this knowledge little has changed in practice, and it appears questionable whether core dynamics of the adaptation gap are actually understood.
This article draws attention to lock-in dynamics as a more fundamental potential explanation for this adaptation gap. With lock-ins we refer to the (self-)reinforcing systemic forces and causal mechanisms in social-technical-environmental systems that are actively impeding adaptation action. The concept is well-established in climate mitigation literature, wherein ‘carbon lock-ins’ have been shown to hinder decarbonisation agendas (Unruh, 2000; Seto et al., 2016; Low and Miranda, 2020). But it has only recently been gaining traction in climate adaptation (e.g., Groen et al., 2023; Knaggård et al., 2025).
In some cases, lock-ins can be considered both as a cause and as the result of maladaptation. This is because lock-ins are the result of previous decisions that in turn constrain policy options and hinder transformational adaptation today (IPCC, 2022, 84). Through this self-reinforcing dynamic, lock-ins become potential traps that keep policy systems stuck. The result is a dynamic equilibrium where
maladaptation can ‘create lock-ins of vulnerability, exposure and risks that are difficult and expensive to change and exacerbate existing inequalities’ (IPCC, 2022, 27). This raises a provocative question – are societies that do not sufficiently adapt (and thus most societies) perhaps “locked into” situations where an adaptation gap persists? In this article we discuss how a better understanding of lock-ins can shed light on current adaptation deficits and persistent barriers to action, how lock-ins can be uncovered methodologically, and how better knowledge of lock-ins can be utilised to inform ‘unlocking’ strategies. We conclude with a call-to-action to advance this agenda further, in the hope of accelerating transformative adaptation action and helping to close the adaptation gap.
2.		Understanding lock-ins in climate adaptation
The idea of lock-in originates in evolutionary economics and complexity theory (David, 1985; Arthur, 1989), but has since been adopted in political science (e.g., Pierson, 2000), economic geography (e.g., Moodysson and Sack, 2016), science and technology studies (e.g., Foxon, 2011), and sociology (e.g., Burton and Maja, 2020). Lock-in theory is rooted in the idea of path dependence, described as ‘the tendency for past decisions and events to self-reinforce, thereby diminishing and possibly excluding the prospects for alternatives to emerge’ (Fleurbaey et al., 2014, 321). Lock-ins denote a (self-) reinforcing, stabilising dynamic that proves highly resistant to change. Reinforcing feedbacks are driven through a combination of i) increasing returns, as the benefits of maintaining the course of action increase over time; ii) high transition costs associated with changing the course of action; and iii) increasing connectivity with other system elements such as organisations, institutions, symbiotic technology. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, these dynamics serve to maintain a specific course of action and discourage alternatives, even when better options may exist (Wilson et al., 2016).
It is only recently that lock-in theory has captured the attention of adaptation scholars (Siebenhüner et al., 2021; Teebken, 2022). Thus far, the field has tended to focus on adaptation barriers, or “impediments that can stop, delay, or divert the adaptation process” (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010, 22027). These range from lack of political will and leadership, to a lack of policy capacity and insufficient resources (Eisenack et al., 2014). While these are important, they rely implicitly on the assumption that individuals and decision-makers intend to adapt, but cannot, due to for example, lack of resources, political will, or various obstacles and barriers. Lock-in theory goes beyond such static and linear reasoning and picks up the challenge of better understanding the societal processes driving static systems as suggested by Morrison et al. (2022). It represents a novel perspective for discussions on the governance of adaptation (Huitema et al., 2016). It shifts attention to the - often under-theorised and implicit (Turnheim and Sovacool, 2020) - role of incumbent system dynamics and underlying dominant paradigms in shaping adaptation pathways and explains how systems (including policy systems) become trapped in a particular stable equilibrium. That means that even if some individual barriers might be overcome, the stability and persistence of a system's equilibrium might still prevent more profound change. The underlying postulation behind the perspective is that transformative – i.e. systemic – adaptation action that effectively narrows the adaptation gap, rather than perpetuating it, depends primarily on a thorough understanding of the fundamental dynamics that reinforce the current system equilibrium. Without this fundamental understanding, adaptation actions risk being just another step along previous paths, in turn making a narrowing of the adaptation gap ever more difficult. The potential impact of lock-in dynamics on adaptation pathways is conceptualised in Fig. 1, which illustrates how lock-ins can drive maladaptive pathways and undermine climate resilient development.

Fig. 1. Conceptualising the intersection between lock-in dynamics and adaptation pathways (adapted from IPCC, 2022; Calvin et al., 2023, Figure SPM.6), and Sydow et al. (2009)).

What do we know about lock-ins? Seto et al. (2016) distinguish and provide descriptions of the various types of lock-ins, namely infrastructural-technological, institutional, and behavioural lock-ins. They emerge and are reinforced through dynamic interactions between different system elements, with asymmetries in power between actor groups playing a major role, with concomitant implications for social justice and just transitions (Morrison et al., 2022; Eitan and Hekkert, 2023). It has been pointed out that lock-in dynamics may have both conscious and unconscious drivers, leading to both intended and unintended consequences. Unintentional lock-ins may emerge in situations, where routines and habits grow out of established practices or decisions in adjacent fields, as for instance in the case of coastal management. Groen et al. (2023) show how societal expectations for state protection against flooding have emerged with the increasing centralisation of flood risk management in the UK, despite the absence of statutory rights to protection. While such unintentional lock-ins emphasise the systemic forces limiting adaptation options, this perspective should not be seen as apolitical or as obfuscating responsibilities and the political nature of adaptation policies. Lock-ins can emerge intentionally through political, normative decisions about collective goods and collective behavior (Thelen, 1999). A lock-in perspective, in this context, may be instrumental in uncovering the very systemic forces that fuel or even exacerbate socio-environmental injustices in climate adaptation. An example of this can be seen in the flood protection efforts in New Orleans, USA, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Through framing the reconstruction and adaptation efforts as technical challenges, a highly centralized and expert-led governance model got further entrenched, sidelining calls for equitable or nature-based adaptation. Consequently, funding and infrastructure were steered towards economically strategic areas (e.g., business districts, higher-income areas), with lower-income, predominantly Black neighborhoods receiving considerably less attention and thus cementing cycles of marginalization (Maione, 2019; Colten, 2021).
It is unavoidable that discussions about lock-ins also have a normative dimension, as some established interests and incumbents might see existing lock-ins, even as they lead to maladaptation, as desirable. Others may deplore the current situation, and find transformation in a new direction much more desirable. And where original employment of the concept of lock-in served to analyse ‘frozen accidents’ or point to suboptimal system states, there is increasing realization that the stabilising effects of lock-in dynamics can sometimes serve a positive function (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2018; Seto et al., 2016; Kaya et al., 2026). Once set in motion, self-reinforcing forces may steer systems in normatively desirable directions, such as fostering social learning and collective action in resilience building (Wilson, 2014), or ‘ratcheting-up’ positive developments into wider transformations (Pahle et al., 2018). Moreover, lock-ins may help establish durable policies that have time to mature and can override ‘political bumps in the road’ (Jordan et al., 2023, 426). As an avenue to practically attain these positive functions, recent research has examined the role of ‘commitment devices’ – time-consistent structures of independent oversight for political decision-making akin to central banks (Jordan et al., 2022). These include non-majoritarian agencies for specific purposes, very long-term policy commitments, constitutional provisions or automatic policy adjustments, and have gathered some policy and academic attention (Brunner et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2022). Yet, systematic understanding of the way these devices are used (or not), especially regarding climate adaptation, is lacking to date. In this vein, further research is required to examine the potentially desirable effects of lock-ins, and how the associated rigidity can be balanced with the flexibility required for responsive climate action.
3.		Uncovering lock-ins
While a focus on lock-ins promises to offer new opportunities for understanding and addressing the adaptation gap in a systemic manner, the actual mechanisms – i.e. the particular cause-effect relations – that explain the emergence of lock-ins deserve particular attention. Different sources of lock-ins have been proffered for other fields (Trencher et al., 2020; Hegger et al., 2020) that may prove valid for the field of climate adaptation. Those include, first, material factors such as incumbent technologies, built infrastructures and sunk assets that are part of current adaptation strategies. These restrain alternative choices due to long lifecycles and high costs, or through their asset specificity and limited compatibility with new technologies (Seto et al., 2016; Sande´n and Hillman, 2011). For instance, dyke construction has been the dominant approach to coastal protection in low-lying coastal zones of the Netherlands and Germany, and it became very difficult to build back or change to other more nature-based solutions for coastal protection (van Buuren et al., 2014; Reise, 2017). Second, non-material factors hinder effective adaptation through formal and informal institutions, cognitive frames and discourses that guide individual and collective human behaviour (Simoens et al., 2022; Knaggård et al., 2025). For example, formal institutions such as laws and regulations restrict adaptation pathways in various problem domains such as urban heat, biodiversity, and forestry (Siebenhüner et al., 2021).
Scholars from different disciplines have typically adopted a mechanistic perspective to trace the self-reinforcing momentum of lock-ins (Jager Nicolas et al., 2022; Biesbroek et al., 2014; Seto et al., 2016). In this perspective, causal mechanisms form the building blocks of the analysis as they provide a continuous and contiguous chain of links between different elements, which in combination lead to emergent system behaviour (Hedstro¨m and Ylikoski, 2010). Causal mechanisms are identified by the effect they produce, and are triggered and extinguished under specific contextual conditions (Biesbroek et al., 2014). Previous lock-in scholarship has identified a number of archetypical self-reinforcing mechanisms (e.g., Arthur, 1989; Pierson, 2000; Sydow et al., 2009). These include economies of scale and scope, learning effects, adaptive expectations, direct and indirect network externalities, or coordination effects. Such mechanisms often imply the accumulation of relative benefits of continued use (exploitation) of current approaches, and an increase of the costs of exiting and switching to an alternative (exploration) (Pierson, 2000; Duit and Galaz, 2008), resulting in system stability and inertia.
To identify lock-ins and trace the underlying mechanisms, a range of research methods has been deployed. These include studies drawing from a range of datasets, from quantitative-based analyses of economic/ market data and specific indicators (e.g., Erickson et al., 2015), to qualitative assessments informed by in-depth policy (document) analysis and stakeholder interviews (e.g., Trencher et al., 2020; Groen et al., 2023) or discursive analyses (e.g., Simoens et al., 2022). While studies of carbon lock-in might be more prone to quantitative assessments, with carbon emissions as a widely-available outcome metric (e.g., Erickson et al., 2015), such approaches are not directly transferable to the field of climate adaptation, which is arguably less tractable (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019). While the carbon-based economy and lifestyle serves as incumbent paradigm in carbon-lock in, adaptation does not have one overall paradigm reproduced through business-as-usual and current trajectories. Instead, for different problem domains, different incumbent approaches might exist, and these might then differ with context and jurisdiction. See, for instance, the various approaches to flooding in the Germany, where prevention and government safety guarantees dominate, and in the UK, where insurance dominates (Groen et al., 2023). As the example suggests, different ideational foundations might exist in different contexts, which are implied in current lock-ins. This diversity of incumbent systems is also what makes adaptation lock-ins harder to identify and assess, as compared to carbon-lock in, and may have precluded a similar uptake of the idea so far. Social science research methods have a vital role to play in identifying the presence of lock-in mechanisms, or in the tricky task of explaining the absence of certain actions. For instance, process tracing (e.g., Collier, 2011) can be instrumental in identifying incumbents and uncovering plausible causal mechanisms that explain an event or situation as it unfolds over time. Through this approach, causal inferences are determined in accordance with rival explanations and counterfactual reasoning, to essentially render alternative explanations obsolete, or at least less plausible (Biesbroek et al., 2014). In addition to these methods of within-case analysis, for between-case comparative inquiry Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) (Ragin, 2008; Schneider and Wagemann, 2012) might offer a fruitful avenue for new insights. The method draws on the in-depth, qualitative understanding of case research and combines it with a structured, comparative approach based on Boolean algebra. This offers a promising combination for identifying and comparing context-dependent lock-in mechanisms and for drawing conclusions beyond an individual case.
However, the study of lock-ins will remain plagued by conceptual and methodological puzzles for a while longer. This is because research into lock-in touches on a number of complexities current academic discourse finds hard to grapple with. First, delimiting the system under study poses a crucial challenge. While governance scholars tend to focus primarily on policy (sub-)systems, the study of lock-ins requires us to look beyond these and to include questions around infrastructure, individual behaviour, or routine planning into our perspectives. So far, these questions are often outside immediate attention, and play the role of antecedents, context or downstream consequences in policy and governance studies, rather than decisive components of explanations. The delimitation challenge further includes the question of defining the boundaries of a lock-in system and dynamic itself – particularly where more than one mechanism may be involved – and specifying different effects and intensities within the system under study. Second, in a research environment where transformation and transitions are the (urgently needed) focal direction points, the role of incumbent systems and the forces behind their stability and rigidity tend to be overlooked and under-theorized (cf. Turnheim and Sovacool, 2020). These can be seen as the flip side of the coin of transformation research, as they may provide a fertile ground for meaningful insights into questions of change and transition. Third, lock-in research bears an inherent tension between in-depth understanding and generalizable insights. As explained, adaptation lock-ins are highly context-dependent and their identification requires a deep understanding and scrutiny of individual cases and the ways in which lock-in mechanisms unfold, coalesce and play out together. Yet, generalizable findings beyond individual cases require the abstraction beyond such individual stories and the identification of larger patterns. A systematic framework for characterising lock-in mechanisms and analysing emergent dynamics specifically for climate adaptation is needed for such an endeavor (e.g., Bernstein and Hoffmann, 2018, 2019). While scholars have observed how certain mechanisms appear to coalesce and influence one another, there has been little attempt within adaptation research (and beyond) to examine this in a systematic way or assess and compare the impact of these relational dynamics on the rigidity of policy (sub)systems. The advantages of doing this include making sense of the myriad single mechanisms that are often listed, in a way that is more analytical than previous typologies of lock-ins. Such assessments invariably raise questions about the intensity of established lock-ins and how to measure these: are some dynamics more deeply rooted and therefore harder to ‘unlock’ than others? Finally, one further challenge resulting from these complexities is the task to derive practical and actionable tools and recommendations. Despite the intellectual intricacies of analysing lock-ins, it should be one of our main goals to develop ways that allow for their diagnosis and management in practical terms. Indicators or policy signals that signify the presence of a lock-in, and its potential beginning or end, are essential for generating actionable knowledge, yet these are sorely lacking.
4.		Utilising lock-in knowledge to affect adaptation trajectories
The lock-in perspective and concomitant methodologies allow us to perform retrospective and prospective assessment of the transformative or trapping potential of adaptation trajectories. Many adaptation activities and interventions are underway and there is evidence that some measures have improved climate resilience (Termeer et al., 2017). Whilst this is something to be heralded, it is undeniable that most results in this realm are at best low-hanging fruits, and at worst reinforcing maladaptive trajectories. In many cases climate adaptation action cannot be considered systemic, i.e. does not address root causes, does not address fundamental inequities in society, and does not sufficiently question standing practices and incumbent interests and therefore also falls short of transformative adaptation (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021). It has been argued that ‘things are getting better’, but not ‘better enough’ (Bernstein and Hoffmann, 2019, 924). The reality is that any adaptation decision or intervention taken today will potentially create its own legacies, path-dependencies and thus potential lock-ins (Rosenbloom et al., 2019). A lock-in perspective might help raise reflexivity in this respect. It also offers opportunities to explore – for instance with stakeholders through futures thinking exercises (Cork et al., 2023) – the risk that current (often cautious and incremental changes in) adaptation policy and governance may exacerbate adaptation deficits long term (Pelling et al., 2015) by entrenching and perpetuating current trajectories (Wise et al., 2014; Eriksen et al., 2020; Ho¨lscher and Frantzeskaki, 2020). Put differently, the lock-in perspective can help stakeholders assess the risk that current investments will shape paths for decades to come and might actually be maladaptive.
On a more positive note, ‘smart’ adaptation today could fuel new trajectories with virtuous, self-reinforcing dynamics in the long-run. For instance, options for managed retreat (Hofstede, 2019) can come with ecological benefits such as biodiversity increase, stronger ecosystem resilience and boosted recreational value of the areas. Overall, lock-in analysis can inform targeting and tailoring of ‘unlocking’ strategies that actively disrupt the self-perpetuating dynamics that reinforce current systems, and in turn strengthen the feasibility and eventual success of adequate adaptation options.
However, critical questions remain about how to translate lock-in thinking into actionable knowledge. Different types of lock-in mechanisms are likely to be amenable to different types of unlocking strategies, but to date there have been few attempts to identify specific strategies and interventions for dissolving lock-ins in climate adaptation. Inspiration may be drawn from climate mitigation and sustainability transformations scholarship, where authors have highlighted the importance of locating ‘sensitive intervention points’ (Farmer et al., 2019) and ‘leverage points’ (Abson et al., 2017). An important part of the challenge in utilising lock-in thinking lies in communicating complex, dynamic explanations clearly to policymakers and practitioners. Disciplinary input from communication studies will be vital. Graphic representations, such as causal loops or systems flows diagrams appear to be a useful tool (Roxas et al., 2019).
Fundamental questions need to be asked about the possibility and desirability of applying lock-in thinking to anticipate and prevent a detrimental lock-in from occurring, and how lock-in dynamics might be intentionally mobilized to ‘lock-out’ maladaptive pathways (Wilson, 2014; Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2018). This touches upon the core concern around the tension between locking in and potentially depoliticizing climate decisions such as through commitment devices, versus effective climate adaptation, shielded from temporary climate backlash. More practical questions arise around adaptive and anticipatory governance, namely how governance systems can be geared to find a delicate balance between exploration – i.e. the capacity to learn, experiment and stay flexible – and exploitation – i.e. the ability to select, refine, and execute (Duit and Galaz, 2008). A lock-in perspective may cross-fertilize with this literature to provide innovative and practical new insights on how to balance exploration and exploitation in a productive and anticipatory manner. In this context, the debate becomes how to foster virtuous rather than vicious circles that advance desirable adaptation pathways. Given the urgency with which society must address the Climate Emergency, the adaptation community must work to ensure the integration of lock-in thinking into planning and policymaking for adaptation futures.
5.		Conclusion
Are we locked into the adaptation gap? Not necessarily. But understanding, uncovering, and utilising knowledge about, lock-ins is a vital aspect of reconfiguring adaptation pathways. Lock-in thinking enriches current understanding of adaptation in two analytical perspectives: Focusing on current options for adaptation decisions, the lock-in approach provides insights into the underlying causal dynamics of path dependency that determine the feasibility of more proactive adaptation, and the specific mechanisms that drive these dynamics. Focusing on future impacts of today's decisions, the lock-in approach allows us to characterise adaptation efforts beyond the dichotomy between impasse and transformation, and instead assess in a comprehensive, forward-looking manner the trapping or transformative potentials of the actual adaptation trajectory.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nicolas W. Jager: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Meghan Alexander: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Conceptualization. Lisanne Groen: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Dave Huitema: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Bernd Siebenhüner: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Julie P. King: Writing – original draft. John Turnpenny: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Tim Rayner: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Jean Huge´: Writing – review & editing. Torsten Grothmann: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported, under the Open Research Area (ORA) programme, by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek [grant 464.18.101]; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [grant 396892926]; and the Economic and Social Research Council [grant ES/S015264/1]. For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
Abson, David J., Fischer, Joern, Leventon, Julia, et al., 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46 (1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-016-0800-y.
Arthur, W. Brian, 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and Lock-In by historical events. Econ. J. 99 (394), 116. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208.
Bernstein, Steven, Hoffmann, Matthew, 2018. The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments. Policy Sci. 51 (2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9314-8.
Bernstein, Steven, Hoffmann, Matthew, 2019. Climate politics, metaphors and the fractal carbon trap. Nat. Clim. Change 9 (December), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41558-019-0618-2.
Berrang-Ford, Lea, Biesbroek, Robbert, Ford, James D., et al., 2019. Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments. Nat. Clim. Change 9 (6), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0490-0.
Berrang-Ford, Lea, Siders, A.R., Lesnikowski, Alexandra, et al., 2021. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11 (11), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01170-y.
Biesbroek, G. Robbert, Termeer, Catrien J.A.M., Klostermann, Judith E.M., Kabat, Pavel, 2014. Rethinking barriers to adaptation: mechanism-based explanation of impasses in the governance of an innovative adaptation measure. Glob. Environ. Change 26 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.004, 108–18. 18.
Brunner, Steffen, Flachsland, Christian, Marschinski, Robert, 2012. Credible commitment in carbon policy. Clim. Policy 12 (2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14693062.2011.582327.
Burton, Rob J.F., Maja, Farstad, 2020. Cultural Lock-in and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions: the case of dairy/beef farmers in Norway. Sociol. Rural. 60 (1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12277.
Buuren, Arwin van, Driessen, Peter, Teisman, Geert, Rijswick, Marleen van, 2014. Toward legitimate governance strategies for climate adaptation in the Netherlands: combining insights from a legal, planning, and network perspective. Reg. Environ. Change 14 (3), 1021–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0448-0.
Calvin, Katherine, Dasgupta, Dipak, Krinner, Gerhard, et al., 2023. IPCC, 2023: climate change 2023: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Writing Team, Core, Lee, H., Romero, J. (Eds.), IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6- 9789291691647. First. With Hoesung Lee.
Collier, David, 2011. Understanding process tracing. Politics 44 (4), 823–830. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429.
Colten, Craig E., 2021. State of Disaster: a Historical Geography of Louisiana's Land Loss Crisis. Louisiana State University Press.
Cork, Steven, Alexandra, Carla, Alvarez-Romero, Jorge G., et al., 2023. Exploring alternative futures in the anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48, 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-095011. Volume 48, 2023.
David, Paul A., 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am. Econ. Rev. 75 (2), 332–337.
Duit, Andreas, Galaz, Victor, 2008. Governance and complexity - emerging issues for governance theory. Governance 21 (3), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0491.2008.00402.x.
Eisenack, Klaus, Moser, Susanne C., Hoffmann, Esther, et al., 2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 4 (10), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2350.
Eitan, Avri, Hekkert, Marko P., 2023. Locked in transition? Towards a conceptualization of path-dependence lock-ins in the renewable energy landscape. Energy Res. Social Sci. 106 (December), 103316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103316.
Erickson, Peter, Kartha, Sivan, Lazarus, Michael, Tempest, Kevin, 2015. Assessing carbon Lock-In. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (8). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/ 084023.
Eriksen, Siri, Schipper, E. Lisa F., Scoville-Simonds, Morgan, et al., 2020. Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Develop. Rev. 141, 105383. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383.
Farmer, J.D., Hepburn, C., Ives, M.C., et al., 2019. Sensitive intervention points in the post-carbon transition. Science 364 (6436), 132–134. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aaw7287.
Fleurbaey, Marc, Kartha, Sivian, Bolwig, Simon, et al., 2014. Sustainable development and equity. In: Edenhofer, Ottmar, Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107415416.010.
Foxon, Timothy J., 2011. A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. Ecol. Econ. 70 (12), 2258–2267. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.014.
Groen, Lisanne, Alexander, Meghan, King, Julie P., Jager, Nicolas W., Huitema, Dave, 2023. Re-Examining policy stability in climate adaptation through a Lock-in perspective. J. Eur. Publ. Pol. 30 (3), 488–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13501763.2022.2064535.
Hedstro¨m, Peter, Ylikoski, Petri, 2010. Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36 (1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632.
Hegger, Dries L.T., Runhaar, Hens A.C., Van Laerhoven, Frank, Driessen, Peter P.J., 2020. Towards explanations for stability and change in modes of environmental governance: a systematic approach with illustrations from the Netherlands. Earth Sys. Governance 3, 100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100048.
Hofstede, Jacobus L.A., 2019. On the feasibility of managed retreat in the Wadden Sea of Schleswig-Holstein. J. Coast Conserv. 23 (6), 1069–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11852-019-00714-x.
Ho¨lscher, Katharina, Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2020. Navigating transformations under climate change in cities: features and lock-ins of urban climate governance. In: Ho¨lscher, Katharina, Frantzeskaki, Niki (Eds.), Transformative Climate Governance. A Capacities Perspective to Systematise, Evaluate and Guide Climate Action. Palgrave Macmillan.
Huitema, Dave, Adger, William Neil, Berkhout, Frans, et al., 2016. The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the special feature. Ecol. Soc. 21 (3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08797-210337.
IPCC, 2022. In: P¨ortner, Hans-Otto, Roberts, Debra C., Tignor, Melinda M.B., et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.
Jager Nicolas, W., King Julie, P., Siebenhüner, Bernd, 2022. New challenges and established policy fields – Assessing stability and change in climate adaptation policy through a lock-in perspective. Dms - Der Moderne Staat 15 (2), 394–412. https://doi. org/10.3224/dms.v15i2.06.
Jordan, Andrew J., Brendan, Moore, 2023. The durability–flexibility dialectic: the evolution of decarbonisation policies in the european union. J. Eur. Publ. Pol. 30 (3), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2042721.
Jordan, Andrew, Lorenzoni, Irene, Tosun, Jale, et al., 2022. The political challenges of deep decarbonisation: towards a more integrated agenda. Clim. Act. 1 (1), 6. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s44168-022-00004-7.
Kaya, Hazal Deniz, Leijten, Martijn, Schraven, Daan, Chan, Paul W., 2026. Navigating lock-ins for adaptation: A case study of grid capacity planning in the Dutch energy transition. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01793-6.
Knaggård, Åsa, Eriksson, Kerstin, Persson, Erik, 2025. Disrupting climate adaptation lock-ins? Swedish local civil servants' strategies to enable adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 25 (2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-025-02382-0.
Low, Sean, Miranda, Boettcher, 2020. Delaying decarbonization: climate governmentalities and sociotechnical strategies from copenhagen to paris. Earth Sys. Governance 5 (September), 100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100073.
Maione, Carol, 2019. Recovery planning after hurricane katrina: a case of climate justice. Agora J. Urban Plan. Design 102–113.
Moodysson, Jerker, Sack, Lionel, 2016. Institutional stability and industry renewal: diverging trajectories in the cognac beverage cluster. Ind. Innovat. 23 (5), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1167014.
Morrison, Tiffany H., Neil Adger, W., Agrawal, Arun, et al., 2022. Radical interventions for climate-impacted systems. Nat. Clim. Change 12 (12), 1100–1106. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41558-022-01542-y.
Moser, S.C., Ekstrom, J.A., 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (51), 22026–22031. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1007887107.
Pahle, Michael, Burtraw, Dallas, Flachsland, Christian, et al., 2018. Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency. Nat. Clim. Change 8 (10), 861–867. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41558-018-0287-6.
Pelling, Mark, O'Brien, Karen, Matyas, David, 2015. Adaptation and transformation. Clim. Change 133 (1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0.
Pierson, Paul, 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94 (2), 251–267.
Ragin, Charles C., 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry. Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press.
Reise, Karsten, 2017. Facing the third dimension in coastal flatlands global sea level rise and the need for coastal transformations. Gaia 25 (4), 89–93. https://doi.org/ 10.14512/gaia.26.2.6, 18.
Rosenbloom, Daniel, Meadowcroft, James, Benjamin, Cashore, 2019. Stability and climate policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition pathways. Energy Res. Social Sci. 50 (March 2018), 168–178. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.009.
Roxas, Fernando Martin Y., Rivera, John Paolo R., Eylla, Laire M., Gutierrez, 2019. Locating potential leverage points in A systems thinking causal loop diagram toward policy intervention. World Futures 75 (8), 609–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02604027.2019.1654784.
Sand´en, Bjo¨rn A., Hillman, Karl M., 2011. A framework for analysis of multi-mode interaction among technologies with examples from the history of alternative transport fuels in Sweden. Res. Pol. 40 (3), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2010.12.005.
Schneider, Carsten Q., Wagemann, Claudius, 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Seto, Karen C., Davis, Steven J., Mitchell, Ronald B., Stokes, Eleanor C., Unruh, Gregory, Ürge-Vorsatz, Diana, 2016. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- environ-110615-085934.
Siebenhüner, Bernd, Grothmann, Torsten, Huitema, Dave, Oels, Angela, Rayner, Tim, Turnpenny, John, 2021. Lock-ins in climate adaptation governance: conceptual and empirical approaches. In: Djalante, Riyanti, Siebenhüner, Bernd (Eds.), Adaptiveness. Changing Earth System Governance. Cambridge University Press.
Simoens, Machteld Catharina, Fuenfschilling, Lea, Leipold, Sina, 2022. Discursive dynamics and lock-ins in socio-technical systems: an overview and a way forward. Sustain. Sci. 17, 1841–1853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01110-5.
Sydow, Jo¨rg, Schreyo¨gg, Georg, Koch, Jochen, 2009. Organizational path dependence: opening the black box. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34 (4), 689–709.
Teebken, Julia, 2022. The politics of human vulnerability to climate change. Exploring adaptation lock-ins in China and the United States. In: The Politics of Human Vulnerability to Climate Change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781003183259.
Termeer, Catrien J.A.M., Art, Dewulf, Robbert Biesbroek, G., 2017. Transformational change: governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 60 (4), 558–576. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09640568.2016.1168288.
Thelen, Kathleen, 1999. Historical institutionalism in comparative perspective. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2 (3), 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-0770(03)00069-7, 16.
Thomas, Adelle, Theokritoff, Emily, Lesnikowski, Alexandra, et al., 2021. Global evidence of constraints and limits to human adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 21 (3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01808-9.
Trencher, Gregory, Rinscheid, Adrian, Duygan, Mert, Truong, Nhi, Asuka, Jusen, 2020. Revisiting carbon Lock-in in energy systems: explaining the perpetuation of coal power in Japan. Energy Res. Social Sci. 69 (April), 101770. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101770.
Turnheim, Bruno, Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2020. Forever stuck in old ways? Pluralising incumbencies in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 35, 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.012.
UNEP, 2024. Adaptation gap report 2024: come hell and high water as fires and floods hit the poor hardest, it is time for the world to step up adaptation actions, 2024. htt ps://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2024.
Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. Understanding carbon Lock-In. Energy Policy 28, 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00098-2.
Ürge-Vorsatz, DIana, Rosenzweig, Cynthia, Dawson, Richard J., et al., 2018. Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nat. Clim. Change 8 (3), 174–177. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41558-018-0100-6.
Wilson, Geoff A., 2014. Community resilience: path dependency, Lock-in effects and transitional ruptures. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 57 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09640568.2012.741519.
Wilson, Geoff A., Quaranta, Giovanni, Kelly, Claire, Salvia, Rosanna, 2016. Community resilience, land degradation and endogenous Lock-in effects: evidence from the alento region, Campania, Italy. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 59 (3), 518–537. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1024306.
Wise, R.M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., et al., 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002.